Post by skyship on Dec 9, 2010 0:45:30 GMT -5
Lil sissy,
If this makes sense in relationship to cells.
==================
"Morphogenetic field
A.G.Gurwitsch analysed the embryonic development of the sea-urchin as a vector-field, as if the proliferation of cells into organs were brought about by putative external forces.
This article is about the mainstream developmental biology concept. For Rupert Sheldrake's concept of the same name see the corresponding section of Morphic field.
In developmental biology, a morphogenetic field is a group of cells able to respond to discrete, localized biochemical signals leading to the development of specific morphological structures or organs. The spatial and temporal extent of the embryonic fields are dynamic, and within the field is a collection of interacting cells out of which a particular organ is formed.[3] As a group, the cells within a given morphogenetic field are constrained — i.e. cells in a limb field will become a limb tissue, those in a cardiac field will become heart tissue.[4] Importantly, however, the specific cellular programming of individual cells in a field is flexible: an individual cell in a cardiac field can be redirected via cell-to-cell signaling to replace specific damaged or missing cells.[4] Imaginal discs in insect larvae are examples of morphogenetic fields.[5]'
00000000000000000000000000
The concept of the morphogenetic field, fundamental in the early twentieth century to the study of embryological development, was first introduced in 1910 by Alexander G. Gurwitsch.[6] Experimental support was provided by Ross Granville Harrison's experiments transplanting fragments of a newt embryo into different locations.[7]
Harrison was able to identify "fields" of cells producing organs such as limbs, tail and gills and to show that these fields could be fragmented or have undifferentiated cells added and a complete normal final structure would still result. It was thus considered that it was the "field" of cells, rather than individual cells, that were patterned for subsequent development of particular organs. The field concept was developed further by Harrison's friend Hans Spemann, and then by Paul Weiss and others.[3]
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.
Scott Gilbert proposes that the morphogenetic field is a middle ground between genes and evolution.[3] That is, genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism.[3] Jessica Bolker describes morphogenetic fields not merely incipient structures or organs, but as dynamic entities with their own localized development processes, which are central to the emerging field of evolutionary development ("evo-devo").[8]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
It is the field where morphogenesis can happen, in group of cells,
in organ, outside of body, in environment. in the signalling, not
just sonic hedgehog.
This is where the concept of Evo Devo comes in.
===================
So, if a morphogenetic field is inside say the arm, the genes read
the .. well....
....." genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism"
the genes recognize the field or environment and then the genes
in turn form the organism."
So, if the extracellular environment has been changed, the field itself,
to provide a message to the genes, the genes will read the message
and then form the organ.
So, this would appear to be acquired, and not genetic, it is acquired
from the environment of the womb, if embryo, or the progenitor or
stem cell.
Parasites can do this job, so a parasite of unknown origin was created
to begin the cycle. This Morgellons has about 8 cycles, and that
appears to be the same cycle as trypanasoma bruceii, that is the
homeobox gene used, I believe for the forced/directed evo devo.
The system is outside the cells. Yet by remote and resonance, sound,
electrical, or bioluminence can actually direct the genes in a modified
way, to develop whatever the RNA message or signal is delivering.
That is my take on that.
from this declaration from above description:
=============================
Imaginal discs in insect larvae are examples of morphogenetic fields.
What are these imaginal discs?
Image disks, mirror, but not exactly like the real genetic material.
=====
Skyship
If this makes sense in relationship to cells.
==================
"Morphogenetic field
A.G.Gurwitsch analysed the embryonic development of the sea-urchin as a vector-field, as if the proliferation of cells into organs were brought about by putative external forces.
This article is about the mainstream developmental biology concept. For Rupert Sheldrake's concept of the same name see the corresponding section of Morphic field.
In developmental biology, a morphogenetic field is a group of cells able to respond to discrete, localized biochemical signals leading to the development of specific morphological structures or organs. The spatial and temporal extent of the embryonic fields are dynamic, and within the field is a collection of interacting cells out of which a particular organ is formed.[3] As a group, the cells within a given morphogenetic field are constrained — i.e. cells in a limb field will become a limb tissue, those in a cardiac field will become heart tissue.[4] Importantly, however, the specific cellular programming of individual cells in a field is flexible: an individual cell in a cardiac field can be redirected via cell-to-cell signaling to replace specific damaged or missing cells.[4] Imaginal discs in insect larvae are examples of morphogenetic fields.[5]'
00000000000000000000000000
The concept of the morphogenetic field, fundamental in the early twentieth century to the study of embryological development, was first introduced in 1910 by Alexander G. Gurwitsch.[6] Experimental support was provided by Ross Granville Harrison's experiments transplanting fragments of a newt embryo into different locations.[7]
Harrison was able to identify "fields" of cells producing organs such as limbs, tail and gills and to show that these fields could be fragmented or have undifferentiated cells added and a complete normal final structure would still result. It was thus considered that it was the "field" of cells, rather than individual cells, that were patterned for subsequent development of particular organs. The field concept was developed further by Harrison's friend Hans Spemann, and then by Paul Weiss and others.[3]
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.
Scott Gilbert proposes that the morphogenetic field is a middle ground between genes and evolution.[3] That is, genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism.[3] Jessica Bolker describes morphogenetic fields not merely incipient structures or organs, but as dynamic entities with their own localized development processes, which are central to the emerging field of evolutionary development ("evo-devo").[8]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
It is the field where morphogenesis can happen, in group of cells,
in organ, outside of body, in environment. in the signalling, not
just sonic hedgehog.
This is where the concept of Evo Devo comes in.
===================
So, if a morphogenetic field is inside say the arm, the genes read
the .. well....
....." genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism"
the genes recognize the field or environment and then the genes
in turn form the organism."
So, if the extracellular environment has been changed, the field itself,
to provide a message to the genes, the genes will read the message
and then form the organ.
So, this would appear to be acquired, and not genetic, it is acquired
from the environment of the womb, if embryo, or the progenitor or
stem cell.
Parasites can do this job, so a parasite of unknown origin was created
to begin the cycle. This Morgellons has about 8 cycles, and that
appears to be the same cycle as trypanasoma bruceii, that is the
homeobox gene used, I believe for the forced/directed evo devo.
The system is outside the cells. Yet by remote and resonance, sound,
electrical, or bioluminence can actually direct the genes in a modified
way, to develop whatever the RNA message or signal is delivering.
That is my take on that.
from this declaration from above description:
=============================
Imaginal discs in insect larvae are examples of morphogenetic fields.
What are these imaginal discs?
Image disks, mirror, but not exactly like the real genetic material.
=====
Skyship